Hillary Panders to ILLEGALS
Jan 11, 2008 Link Fest, Political
Hillary Clinton is in Nevada and she is pandering to the ILLEGAL population. While touring a poor area she met with Hispanics who are down and out and not making very much money. Some guy yelled that his wife was ILLEGAL and Hillary replied that “no woman is illegal.”
Hillary was asked if she would give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS in two debates. The first one she flopped all over and gave two different answers. The second time she flat out stated “No!” Does this mean she will give licenses to women who are here illegally because she does not view them as ILLEGAL?
Is Hillary playing up the first woman to run ploy by trying to make people believe she is interested in women’s rights or that she views women differently than men? Did she discriminate by excluding men when she said that no woman was ILLEGAL?
Hillary Clinton will say anything to anyone to get elected. She knows that many women supported her in New Hampshire and that Hispanics are upset with the Republican Party because its members believe in the rule of law, something the Clinton crime family has had trouble with in the past. She breaks the law and has no problem pandering to others who do the same. She also knows that saying what she did makes more Hispanic women likely to vote for her.
Of course, she could have been giving them a veiled message that they could vote in the elections because she says they are not ILLEGAL.
Hillary is Satan.
Source:
Review Journal
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
They Do Work Most Americans Won’t
Dec 14, 2007 Military
I feel it is necessary for me to say that I show sympathy for those who do the jobs most Americans will not do. Let us look at the facts, something I always try to do:
- They travel miles in the heat.
- They risk their lives crossing a border.
- They don’t get paid enough wages.
- They do jobs that others won’t do or are afraid to do.
- They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.
- They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day every day.
These are certainly tough considerations and to top it off there are many in this country who do not think these people are worth anything and that they are law breakers. I have heard them called murderers, rapists, criminals and all kinds of other names by members of our very own Congress. All these people want is freedom and they are willing to give their lives for it.
I am not talking about ILLEGALS who cross our borders because they are criminals. The people described above are the members of our military and they endure more hardship than anyone in this country and they certainly provide more for us than any ILLEGAL ever will.
This Christmas Season, take time to thank the members of our military and remember them in your prayers.
Big Dog Salute to my friend Raven.
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, nuke’s, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
The Ron Paul Revolution
Nov 17, 2007 Political
I have to start off by saying that I like Ron Paul. I don’t know that I like him enough to vote for him for president yet but I like most of his positions. There is a Ron Paul Revolution that appears to be coming from the youth in America, those of college age who are most likely fed up with politics as usual in this country. The problem is, will there be enough of them to help him win? If the history of voting shows anything, it might not be an issue because the youth in America tend NOT to vote. That is why the mainstream politicians court the vote of the seasoned among us. The elderly vote in droves compared to the young however, Paul’s age might help him with the elderly vote. One other thing; is Paul the candidate that can beat any Democrat on the ticket?
Paul has great ideas about retuning this country to following the Constitution. His Congressional nickname is Dr. No because he votes no on any item that does not conform to the limits of the Constitution. As far as any of the candidates are concerned, his voting record is the only one that shows conformity to the Constitution.
Paul is for placing us back on the gold standard and for abolishing the IRS and he would repeal the income tax, all are not bad ideas. Placing us on the gold standard would not allow us just print money to handle inflation. Our country did well under the gold standard and it is time our money was backed by something of value. The backing of the words of politicians is not very strong. The tax system in this country is a sham and it allows government to take our money and redistribute it anywhere they so desire. Congress has shown that it does not know how to handle money and that it is fiscally irresponsible. The XVI Amendment, passed in 1913, is reported to have never been ratified by the required 3/4 of the states because Ohio was not “a state” due to an administrative error. Regardless of the arguments, the tax code has been in effect for nearly 100 years and the only way to do it right is to repeal it and start over.
The IRS is nothing more than the enforcement arm of the extortion racket the government runs. In the days of the mob, people were forced to join protection rackets. If they refused to pay some big guy named Bruno showed up and beat the hell out of them or their business mysteriously burned to the ground. The government extorts money from us and we cannot limit them when they do it. If they passed a law requiring everyone to pay 80% of income in taxes we could not stop it. If we refused to pay, the IRS (their Bruno) would come looking for us and make life miserable. Paul is on to something when he says that we should get rid of this stuff. I like his Constitutional approach. He is not like by the status quo because he says the things DC insiders do not like.
One thing that Ron Paul is adamant about is getting out of the UN. I agree 100% with him on that and believe that we should dissolve all treaties with regard to the UN and we should kick them out of our country. They are worthless and oppose us at every turn.
There are negatives though. Paul is in his 70s and that is a liability though he seems to be in good shape and is handling the rigor of a campaign well. It is still a concern though being young is not necessarily a guarantee one will not die while in office (JFK), it just means that they have a better chance.
There are also the fringe groups that support Paul. The Skinheads is probably the major one but I am sure there are others. I do not think for one minute that Ron Paul courts these people or that he agrees with their message but it is disconcerting that these kinds of folks would flock to his message. Regardless of how Paul feels, perception is reality to many people and many will perceive that he has their philosophies.
The other thing to think about is can Ron Paul beat any of the Democrats that are running? He certainly can garner votes from young people fed up with the system and he can garner votes from moderate conservatives who want the country run in accordance with the Constitution but there are a lot of liberals who are going to vote and they do not like this idea of limited government or repealing the income tax. Liberals are for big government and lots of tax money to spend on worthless programs. Since universal health care is not part of the Constitution, they will not like Paul’s positions because he would deny those things liberals believe to be entitlements.
While I agree with Paul on domestic issues, I am not in agreement with his foreign policy ideas. Regardless of what one believes about the war in Iraq, a complete withdrawal would result in disaster in Iraq as well as here at home. If we are perceived as weak then the radical Muslims will increase their attacks upon us. Clinton’s decisions not to attack them after they continually attacked us led to 9/11. Despite the rewritten history and the Berger stolen documents, it is undeniable that this is what happened. Bin Laden told us that he attacked us because of the weakness displayed by Clinton. If Ron Paul displays a similar weakness then we will be hit again.
If Ron Paul is unwilling to use our military then he should not be President. If, on the other hand, he has some idea as to how to use them to keep us from being attacked then I can listen to what he has to say. I realize that Paul believes we attacked illegally and that the money is being wasted and I know liberals would love to spend it on street corner abortion clinics or other such things. With regard to Paul, the money is worthless if we are attacked here at home and with regard to liberals, they will not get the money if Paul is President. However, if Paul agrees to withdraw all of the financial support we provide around the world and bring our troops home from all nations and put them on bases guarding our country from enemies (and ILLEGALS) then we might be on to something. This means ALL support but it also means that we would be abandoning our allies like Israel, unless Paul has some idea about a treaty with them to help protect them from the Muslim world. I doubt that would happen because Paul seems convinced that since we were able to stare down a Soviet Union with nukes that an Iran with nukes would pose little threat and should be of no concern. I am not sure that he understands that Ahmadinejad is not plating with a full deck and would launch on Israel. In that case I would have to throw back the Ron Paul supporter’s question; WWRPD?
I have not decided on a candidate as of yet. I am watching and listening to see who will do the best job for this country and who can beat the Democratic candidate. I will continue to watch Paul with the rest of them (I never discounted him like the media did) and will decide as we get closer to the election.
One thing is for sure, thoughtful comments and dialog will be beneficial to the process but Ron Paul spammers calling names does little to help the process.
Someone from the Revolution enlighten me and my readers.
Tags: conformity, Congress, constitution, Democrats, gold standard, illegals, income tax, Military, President, ron paul, sham, war
Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?
Nov 17, 2007 Political
I wrote a post about the Democratic debate in Nevada and said that none of the contenders were presidential and none were prepared to lead. Dick Morris wrote that CNN was kind to Hillary and failed to follow up on her flat NO when asked about driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. Russert would have asked about the change of heart which Morris says is because New York Governor Spitzer dropped the idea of issuing the licenses. He did it to help Hillary. Now she can oppose it without offending a Governor from her adopted state, a Governor that could hurt her chances of getting votes. The debate showed that CNN truly stands for the Clinton News Network. They were easy on her, highlighted Bill Richardson who wants the VP job under a Hillary ticket and they failed to disclose that their post debate analyst, James Carville, is a consultant to the Clinton campaign. They were pushing Hillary and they were easy on her. In the debate though, Hillary made this statement:
“Let’s not forget that the Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily,†she said in the debate. “We need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers.†FT.com
She is correct, the other side is running for the White House and will not leave it voluntarily. But how does she get to the conclusion she is tested and ready to lead? She has never been in charge of a company, she has never been a governor of a state, she has never led anything. So how is she tested? How is she ready to lead. Richardson is a Governor so he has more experience leading than she does.
Perhaps Hillary is asking us to believe that eight years as First Lady has tested her and given her the experience to lead but since she and her husband refuse to release any of the papers that might prove such a claim that idea should be dismissed out of hand. If being First Lady for eight years is the sole qualification for being a tested leader than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are just as qualified as Hillary though I doubt many Hillary supporters would say these two women are tested and qualified to lead.
As for Hillary’s time in the Senate, what has she actually led? She attaches her name to a lot of bills that others have authored so she can get in on the action. It helps a candidate to be able to say that he (or she) cosponsored legislation. John Kerry’s dismal Senate record was part of his weakness. But how has Hillary led? What legislation has she proposed that was out in front of issues. Besides bashing the current administration at every turn, where has she been out in front of the issues? The fact that she attaches her name as cosponsor to many bills others have proposed (no doubt after seeing what polls and focus groups say) shows that she is more qualified to follow than lead.
She has been running for office for ten months now so she has had little time to actually do her job in the Senate and therefore it is easier for her to attach her name to the hard work of others. This is not the mark of a leader. The only thing that Hillary leads is the race according to national polls (not so in Iowa) but leading in a poll does not make one tested and qualified. I imagine Rush Limbaugh would have high marks in a national poll because he has what Clinton has, name recognition. Though I think Limbaugh would be better at running the country than Clinton the fact that he has name recognition does not make him tested and qualified to lead. The fact that he runs his own company, a company that makes a lot of money, makes him more qualified than a person whose only claim to fame is she happened to be married to a past President.
Hillary is not tested and she is not qualified. The only real test she faced was when a “hostile” moderator asked her to explain her position on driver’s licenses and she failed that test as alluded to by Wolf Blitzer when he said it tripped her up. He handlers must have told her not to address it in depth since they had Spitzer in their pockets and since Wolf had been warned to play nice.
Maybe I have a different idea about what tested and qualified to be a leader means. Then again, I was leading people while Clinton was scheming with Bill to get in the White House and I led long after they left the place. Under the tested and qualified aspect, I have more qualification to lead than Hillary Clinton does. The only two things she has that allows her to run is name recognition and money and those are not leadership qualities.
Face it, if she had not been married to Bill she would have never been elected tot he Senate in New York or any other state and she would not ever be considered as a Presidential candidate. The only thing she has is her husband’s name and his coattails.
Not bad for a woman who claims to be independent and running on her own. Seems to me that her crying they are picking on the girl and her dependence on her husband’s name and record shows that the girl is not a feminist when it is convenient and that she depends on a man for her success. Not very Presidential, now is it?
Oops, did I just pile on the girl?
Tags: bill richardson, clinton campaign, clinton news network, democratic debate, dick morris, first lady, governor spitzer, Hillary Clinton, illegals, james carville, laura bush, white house
Lackluster Democratic Debate
Nov 16, 2007 Political
Last night the Democrats held a debate in Las Vegas and though supporters will claim their individual candidate won, the reality is that it was a pretty evenly matched contest. Obama and Edwards lost their nerve and refused to continue their attack on Clinton, Clinton played the woman card again (veiled as it might have been) and the entire field promised to give away the country for votes. Richardson will give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS, Clinton and Edwards will give free health care to everyone and Obama will make health care affordable for everyone which was actually the smartest of any proposal.
The candidates still wavered on Social Security other than to offer the Democratic staple of taxing the rich (note to candidates, that will not solve the problem) and they were elusive on merit pay for teachers. I recorded the event and watched it late last night but could not make it past the first part. It was nothing more than the same old Democratic mantra of raising taxes, class warfare, and promises none of them intend to keep.
Wolf Blitzer was a puppy dog and walked gingerly around Clinton fearing he would be to harsh. He failed to ask follow-up questions of her, legitimate questions, regarding her change of position on driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. The questions he threw out were so softball that I would not be surprised if they were furnished by the Clinton campaign.
All in all I saw nothing from any candidate that even looked presidential. Leadership requires people to take positions and be firm on them. None of these people takes a firm stance on anything and last night was no difference. With the exception of a few yes or no answers on ILLEGALS and driver’s licenses (the no Clinton gave was not followed up with a question about her change of position) these people nuanced every answer. When they stayed on target their answers were often preceded with some caveat that left a future way out.
I was impressed with Joe Biden’s command of foreign policy but that is all he brings to the table. Richardson sounded like a used car salesman, Edwards a snake oil salesman, Clinton a screeching owl, and Obama a preacher. Kucinich sounded like a raving lunatic and should be fitted with a straight jacket. Other than Biden’s foreign policy strength these candidates were unimpressive.
There was nothing said last night that brings new light on their positions. They regurgitated their talking points and tried to sell us the same bill of goods as they have been peddling all along.
None of these people is worthy of the White House and we will be in trouble if any of them gets elected.
Others with similar items:
Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, Ron Smith WBAL, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: class warfare, clinton campaign, Democrats, illegals, joe biden, legitimate questions, Obama, presidential leadership, puppy dog, wolf blitzer